This Week's Cause For Leftist Overreaction

During Fox News’ coverage of the July 7 London bombings, Washington managing editor Brit Hume told host Shepard Smith that his “first thought,” when he “heard there had been this attack” and saw the low futures market, was “Hmmm, time to buy.” Smith had asked Hume to comment on the lack of a negative U.S. stock market reaction to the London attacks.

I watched the segment that is being referred to live on my lunch hour yesterday. The clip encompasses all the pertinent parts, but let me summarize it for you as well.

]]>< ![CDATA[

Shepard Smith asks Brit Hume if the reason why the stock markets haven’t plunged (as they sometimes do after disasters or tragedies like this one) was because the attacks occurred in the middle of the night U.S. time. Hume said that a better explanation was probably that the stock market was down yesterday and, with the market even further down this morning after news of the attacks begin to hit the media, some people were looking for some bargains. After all, the simplest strategy for sound investing is to buy low and sell high. Hume went on to add that this is what he, personally, thought of when he saw the stock market prices.

Now, in light of that summary, does Hume’s statement sound as sinister as Media Matters is making it out to be? Of course not. The idea of an investor taking advantage of bargain stock prices, regardless of the situation, is not sinister at all. It is, quite simply, practical.

Some might even say that purchasing stock in the face of a tragedy, and thus putting your faith in the continued strength of our markets, is not only a good thing to do from the perspective of personal finances but is also a good thing to do from the perspective of our national economy.

But hey, that doesn’t matter right? The right-wingers at Fox deserved to be bashed regardless of how trumped up and non-sensical the charges are.

Related Posts

About The Author

23 Comments

Masshole ElitistJuly 9, 2005

So to summarize your summary, what you are saying is that the managing editor of Fox News Washington (not specifically a fincial reporter/analyst) saw the result of a terrorist bombing as a great investment opportunity.

And not in an abstract financial sense, but PERSONALLY. Cause that makes it ok.

In case you aren’t aware, editors are somewhat the voice of conscience in a news organization. They are the people who often determine what does and doesn’t get published. If this was Dan Rather, saying something along the lines as ‘Personally, I feel that this must be fallout from the Iraq war, and we’re going to see a lot more of this in the future.’, all you right wing blogger smacktards would be on him like hyenas. But he qualified it with the oh-so-impressive “personally” (which is a liberal p.c. qualifying tool anyways, cause you can’t judge it if it’s just a personal belief), and he’s getting a free ride. HE’S THE GODDAM WASHINGTON EDITOR FOR FOX NEWS! HE GETS NO FREE RIDE, PERSONAL OR NOT!

The duplicity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

AnonymousDrivelJuly 9, 2005

I’ve often wondered if such events are used by terrorists to hedge their bets in the investment world and cash in on a quick stock/fund sale to finance their ongoing war. Since they artificially and transiently effect market equity downward (at least that has been the trend when Western targets are selected), and they know beforehand the timing, they can get their investment ducks in a row and cash in or out depending on their portfolio holdings. It’s not a guaranteed return but it sure does boost the odds of a quick payout.

Hmm. I guess this comment makes me an evil, capitalist, infidel… Oops, I was one already whether I think it, act it, or speak it. Take that you hyperventilists.

JDJuly 9, 2005

Masshole can be given credit for trying to live up to his name.

If the fucktards on the left would bother to read this stuff, rather than just ran out and scream and whine on command from David “I swear I am no longer a whore” Brock, Atrios, Oliver “could you bring me another side of beef please” Willis, et al … they might someday have a rational independent thought. But then again, that may just be asking too damn much.

Since you completely missed the point, Hume was having a conversation about the freaking stock market, and was specifically talking about how the markets had reacted to the news of the bombings, even more specifically, he was asked about the lack of an overall negative reaction from the stock market. Though I know you demwits lost control of all of your mental faculties after the phrase “first thought”, he was speaking to his first thought after he had heard about the bombings AND the low futures prices. To put it even more simply for you, he heard phrase #1, terrorist bombing, phrase #2, low futures prices, and arrived at conclusion, not a bad time to buy.

O-Dub was all a twitter over this quote, which he completely took out of context, and another by Kilmeade, which to call what he did to that one taking it out of context, would render the whole concept of context obsolete. Not at all surprising though.

blueeyesJuly 9, 2005

Masshole, it’s more like Dan Rather having an entire news episode devoted to the 7/7 attack, stating once that the war in Iraq could have contributed, and then having every Right-Wing blogger on the planet say Dan had spent 60 minutes claiming that America was evil and had personally caused the deaths by corrupting otherwise innocent people.

Oddly enough, people have been saying that, and it’s only the verrry hard right, such as Malkin, who have been slamming them. And even Malkin tries to keep some sort of context to the rest of the conversation.

This case with Brit Hume is really an issue of a quote being taken out of context to the point of absurdity.

Well, there goes the Plame case and now Bush gets more “support” for his fake war.

…

first thought people would be angered and waking up to the real world, realizing bush’s lies

…

It’s another excuse for Bush and Co. to stay in Iraq and, what are we being distracted from?

…

…..that was actually my first thought. You know, every time Bush is in trouble, something always seems to happen to remind us of terrorism.

…

My thoughts went to the People
who are affected by this terror that bush and blair wrought.
I was pissed all day that we predicted this would happen and they called us a “fringe group”!
bush and blair had Oil in their eyes!

…

I just wept. Had a hard time driving to work. And then I thought,
“yeah, right…safer world, you bet, you little pansy-ass cowardly f*ck…”
How could this have happened, anyway? Saddam’s locked up, right?
Wonder how long it will be before the Chimp spouts his little “..and our nation and the world are safer” line again. What a lying sack of sh*t.

…

Mine were “who’s behind it and who benefits”?
* and *

(Just FYI on that last one if you need it: the DUmmies typically use the asterix symbol in place of Bush’s name, so the person’s answer to his own question is “Bush [is behind the bombings] and Bush [will benefit from them].”)

BushCo pulled it off. We have thought he would need to do something
but knew he couldn’t do it here. How long have we waited for the next strike as his failures and crimes stacked up.

…

My very first gut-feeling was MIHOP? My very first.
I looked at the things in the news that needed distracting from:
Rove-gate, DSM, growing anti-war sentiment, leader’s(s’) falling approval ratings…AND the G8. Blair HAD expressed his disappointment PRIOR to G8 with Shrub’s position on Global Warming. And Britain had already announced they were pulling troops out of Iraq. Why would Terrorists attack a country that was doing what they asked?

(Another FYI: “MIHOP” stands for “[Bush] made it happen on purpose,” a phrase originating with the 9/11 attacks and companion of “LIHOP” – “[Bush] let it happen on purpose.”)

Negropote did it
to bolster Bu$h and make everyone forget about anything else. The people who claimed to have done it sound awefully phony.

…

Mine: yesterday England decided to pull out their soldiers from Iraq.
Today they got a “terrorist attack”. An Israeli financial expert didn’t show up to his speech because he got the word early. I point a finger at our own government and/or Israel. I believe the people that bombed Britian caused 9-11 – and it wasn’t Arabs.

…

First thought: “Damn you Bush”.

…

I thought they made it happen again. Just in time for the G-8 (perhaps sends a message to Mr. Blair, too) as well as to distract from Plamegate, and the Supreme nominations — just in time to make the sheeple say “See our President stand firm against terror”….”Everyone bow down to the President”.
When things get nasty this bunch of creeps get downright vicious. They will do anything…ANYTHING…to stay in power. So it’s not a huge surprise that our poor allies suffered this loss. Bush was taking a beating in the polls and beginning to take some flack in the media. Remember how during the Presidential campaign everytime he got in a pickle they increased the terror alert?
This is the same thing – I honestly feel this in my gut – only this time, they know we wouldn’t have responded to another senseless elevated threat warning. Better to let us get another taste of death and destruction.
Watch them make political hay out of this. Bastards.

…

these fascists are in the White House
Yeah I blame Bush, because all this shit happened on his watch–just like CLinton killed 500k Iraqs, with sanctions. I blame Clinton for that, and BLame Bush for this.
Blaming Bush is not old–its the truth

…

Bush IS To Blame
Clinton STOPPED the terrorists . He CAUGHT them and put them on trial and put them in jail, and because of that, we had foreknowledge of the Millenium Plot and he PREVENTED it.
Bush just left our country wide open, whether because he knew beforehand or was just incompetent wastrel that he is. Bush is WASTING our resources in Iraq!
OF COURSE, we KNOW the terrorist threat is real – who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I think !!!. That is why we need a real leader – one who sees the real threats and GOES AFTER THEM.

That’s about the half-way point. Sorry to take up so much space, but this insanity needs to be exposed. These supposedly “reality-based community” members are nothing of the sort. They have absolutely no grasp on reality whatsoever! Their first thoughts weren’t for the victims. Their first thoughts were about blaming President Bush. They live in a fantasy world that would be dangerous to themselves and others if they ever left the seats in front of their computers and ventured out into the real world where the rest of us live.

I read about this issue over on FreeRepublic an hour or so ago (just saying)…the point that Brit Hume made was IN RESPONSE TO BEING ASKED a “financial” issue question by another FOX host (Neil Cavuto) on a FINANCIAL program (Neil Cavuto’s), within a FINANCIAL CONTEXT and Brit Hume responded with a FINANCIAL CONTEXT REPLY.

HOWEVER, I think it’s important to recognize something here as to the additional context of the entire episode (the 7/7 events in London), and that is that the entire premise of Ossam Bin Laden’s terrorist objective is to “drive the United States into poverty,” to impoverish anyone he considers to be an aspect of his enemy…and that’s become the target of the terrorist movement that OBL has created. Just look at the targets already affected, here, now London, and Spain and Israel (Spain for assisting the others) and earlier still, Rome.

So, the whole premise of this vile terrorism is to take away resources from those of us who have them, to “impoverish” others.

To discuss profits and how to improve financial situations in light of the terrorist acts is a very, very good and important aspect to countering the defeatism that the terrorism is intended to inspire.

So, be profitable, irk Bin Laden even moreso.

Brit Hume is fabulous, a true asset to FOX (as is Cavuto, just saying) and deserves our respect. I wish I had half the financial inspiration that either of them have.

Masshole ElitistJuly 9, 2005

In reply to AnnonymousD:
Actually, such a statement doesn’t make you evil at all. And it’s pretty interesting. It might be in questionable taste if you were, say, a managing editor of a major news outlet stated during wall to wall general coverage of such a terrorist event, but even then, it wouldn’t make you evil. Those types of knee-jerk emotional-laden characterizations are a characteristic of sophmoric public dialogue. Like calling people “demwits”, “fucktards”, and yes, also “smacktards.”

In reply to JD:
I don’t even know who the people are you refer to in the beginning of your post, but I’ll assume their left-wing news types. Well, the first time I heard about this was here (Google News picked it up 15 mins after it was posted). Looked at the Media Matters clip, tried to find a full transcript somewhere, but all I could find was that small clip. I got the first time that this was in reference to the stock market, and it was a statement made about the interplay of the terrorist event and the market being down the day before. Guess what? It was still pretty callous. If his first reaction was “Good time to buy”, well, that says something about Mr Hume. It wasn’t “How will this affect the futures market log term?” or “Could this cause another downturn like we experienced in 2001?” He went out there, and said that, personally, he thought of making money. Sure, that’s what finacial analysis is for, but just because something is appropriate in a certain context, doesn’t mean it’s appropriate in ALL contexts. I may have a penchant for dirty jokes, which are ultimately designed to make people laugh, but it’s not appropriate to tell them at a funeral. Particulaly if I’m a figure of authority at that funeral.

and in response to Blueeyes:
After looking at a lot of the left coverage of this quote, I’d definitely agree, they are taking out of context quite a bit, not even mentioning that the topic was the futures market. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Hume is off the hook.

Honestly, the biggest problem here is the Fox news broadcast style. I’m not really so offended, and the only thing that made me post on this with such vehemence was the fact that I read the quote here and then saw the immediate defense, complete with denigrations such as “hyperventilating”, “stupidity”, and “non-sensical”. But if you’re going to have wall-to-wall coverage on events, and have your reporters/anchors/commentators/specialists fill ungodly amounts of time going on and on, you’re bound to have a few gaffes here and there. And when it’s a managing editor of your Washington bureau, which has got to be pretty close to the top of the pecking order, you’ve got to watch your step, and be held accountable to when you screw up and say something inappropriate.

p.s.-JD, “…which to call what he did to that one taking it out of …”? That’s quite a conjunction malfunction there.

Hume should have acted in typical hypocritical liberal fashion, and handled the financial stuff secretly while he publicly pretended to be too devastated to think straight… and let’s not forget finding a way to make George Bush and the Republican party responsible for the deaths.

EVERYONE in media influences markets, to a certain degree, [email protected]…just look at all the nonsense being written about markets and broadcast media and more based upon one tiny remark that Brit Hume made.

To suggest that no one in their “right mind” would “(look) to Brit Hume” is missing the more huge emphasis point about his comments — any comments, for that matter, by Hume or anyone else on various opinion broadcasts — and not just this episode but all the time.

Neil Cavuto has an interesting broadcast because he mixes personal ethic into financial issues and does so well and consistently. And asks his guests — and then discusses with them — as to both. Hume’s comments that are causing so much upset to liberals today/tonight were simply comments within that context (you probably realize that already, just saying here to repeat an important point about those comments), but what it is, is that a large number of disgruntled viewers who see CNN and MSNBC and before that, CBS, teetering due to lack of credibility, are just roiled about FOX’s success and looking for an edge to strike.

Meaning, it could and would be anything said by anyone that would launch the negativity about FOX. I think liberals perceive a target and they’re just trying to strike at it. I mean, didn’t Senator Schumer just say that they/Democrats were “going to war” over the Supreme Court nominations issues? Unless they discredit FOX News — they won’t, I really doubt so — they’ll have to suffer through the rest of us receiving mostly informative information via FOX which they cannot then dismiss. I think that, to liberals, nothing will ever be believable, and, thus, they’re just attacking the information sources that conservatives at least listen to with some confidence.

It’s not that Hume is a reliable source of financial advice so much as what’s being said/written tonight about FOX for having Hume on the network. I know that Hume was great during the Presidential election last year, just far superior to others and other networks as to the coverage he provided (at least, presented).

I like his broadcasts at present with the exception of that Maura person from public radio (I think) who guests on his panel and keeps coughing her smoker’s cough throughout the shows.

And, the fact that the resentful Canadian media is now maligning FOX for daring to bring other opinions into their realm, that’s certainly got a lot to do with why American liberals are roiled and what’s going on with liberals elsewhere…I bet that FOX is proving market share and it’s got competitors upset — along with viewers who find their previously cloistered information world now threatened with fresh opinions otherwise.

MeezerJuly 9, 2005

Those wacky lefties! Here’s what they say: “How terrible that you would profit from others’ tragedies.” So let’s run with that. So I, and thousands, millions like me say, “I will *not* profit, etc. etc.” and we all stay out of the market. Yeah, that’s gonna help Britain fight terrorists. Have a serious market downturn.

Having a heart is great. But having a head that ensures the heart doesn’t do stupid stuff is better.

Hume is clearly speculating about the bloodless nature of investors as read through the tea leaves of a down futures market in the wake of another significant tragedy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nice irony, ME – putting words into the mouth of someone who’s putting words in the mouth of someone else.

EgyptsteveJuly 9, 2005

Be honest: if one of your most hated lefty billionaires like George Soros or Ted Turner had made a comment like that after 9/11, how would you have reacted? Don’t bother, we know exactly how you would have hyperventilated.

Toby928July 9, 2005

“Be honest: if one of your most hated lefty billionaires like George Soros or Ted Turner had made a comment like that after 9/11, how would you have reacted? Don’t bother, we know exactly how you would have hyperventilated.”

Is there a mouse in your pocket there steve? Who’s this we? Actually for all I know they did nake comments like that, or act on them. I wouldn’t have noticed at the time as I was busy snapping up a few injured stocks myself (mostly airline stock). Supporting the stock market just seemed like the patriotic thing to do at the time. 😉

Only a liberal could even begin to refer to George Soros in comparison with Brit Hume.

I mean, what’s the correlation there?

Liberals need to fess up/face up to the means by which George Soros has gotten together all that money. He profits mightily from what’s called predatory lending practices…basically, he’s a loan shark to very impoverished nations/peoples.

Ted Turner’s another story, but he’s not at all hated by anyone I know or have ever read writing about the guy.

Brit Hume’s not a billionaire, to my knowledge.

And, hey, what about all the truth and factual information now provided about the Brit Hume comments as to context and meaning? Have liberals understood that or is there still just a means by which FOX is being dissed? Seems like a sketchy plan for a sketchier motivation.

Toby928July 9, 2005

Actually, this is a interesting topic. Let me tell you my experience. I have a small sliver of my speculative money set aside for “Diaster Investing”. I started doing this after the Value Jet crash in Florida. When a company has a disaster or a disaster occurs, the market always overreacts. Even when the company fundamentals are truly bad, there is almost always at least a “dead cat bounce”. The main thing is not to hold long on a company with bad fundamentals. Win some, lose some, but this has been returning about 20% avg for me.

Tob

Disclaimer: This must be purely SPECULATIVE funds as the risk of losing all or some of your money is great. Be warned.

PaulJuly 9, 2005

Can I just say a big thankyou to wizbang for your support of the us British in our time of need. Also to the vast majority of decent Americans who have supported us while we in Britain have had to cope with this vicious terrorism.

Can I also add, that Hitler’s Blitz and his doodlebug rockets never once broke London’s spirit. Years later, the capital was bloodied but unbowed by two decades of deadly attacks by the mad bombers of the IRA. So Thursday’s outrage by the fanatics of al-Qaeda – Britain’s 9/11 -will achieve only one end….To make my nation ever more determined that those who violate our way of life must never win. We are not people who can be bullied. Throughout history we have fought on the side of good and we never surrender whatever the cost. We weep, yes. We mourn. But even in the darkest hours, we remain captains of our souls.

That such barbarism should come the day after the national euphoria at winning the Olympics is desperately sad, but it will not stop us hosting the best Games the world has seen. Nor will the G8 summit of world leaders be deflected from its mission to make poverty history. Any more than Tony Blair and George Bush will be knocked off course in their battle against terror. Those who fight a “holy” war in the name of Islam – a twisted cause which so offends peace-loving Muslims – should heed this: In the name of New York, Washington, Bali, Nairobi, Madrid and now London, we shall have vengeance and justice.

The men and women of our emergency and medical services were heroes every one in our hour of need on Thursday. They personify all that is best about Britain and are living proof that good always triumphs over evil. If the terrorists want a fight, by God we’ll give it to them. In the words of Winston Churchill in 1941: Never give in. Never. Never. Never.

Toby928July 9, 2005

Bless you Paul and your nation. As Americans, we feel your pain and anger. I live in the deep south and even though Hurricane Dennis is bearing down on us at this moment, I fly the Union Jack in front of my house as do many others here. Our flags at the courthouse are at half-mast but your flag flies at the top of the pole.

I don’t get the overanalization of a comment stating the obvious which is the fact that you buy on dips. Even after 9/11, there were buying opportunities. There was a great deal of pessimism and one of my thoughts was it was important that people not sell driving the market lower. I’m a small investor but I still made sure to put a few more bucks into equities after 9/11. In my mind even the little I invested right after 9/11 was a poke in the eye towards the terrorist scum who thought we’d turn yellow and hide from risk.

bullwinkleJuly 9, 2005

If the left really wants to look for someone that profited from the London bombing they need look no further than the man who bought their party. Their leader George Soros is a currencies trader and a few points drop in the Pound would either have cut his losses (if he was losing) or made him a lot money (much more likely). He’s been selling dollars and Pounds both short for quite a while and his little moonbats go out and stage protests to make it seem like confidence in the US and Brit economies is weaker than it actually is. I bet all those lefties will be damn proud some day when they ever grow up and realize that all their attacks on greed and corporate profits actually fed the greed and profits of their leaders. Of course, that’s taking for granted that they will grow up and develop some sense, looks kinda questionable in both cases.

EgyptsteveJuly 12, 2005

“Only a liberal could even begin to refer to George Soros in comparison with Brit Hume.”

I resent that. I hate liberals. I vote socialist. But I suspect you don’t even understand the distinction.